Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T10:22:38.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Why bother to spatially embed EEG? Comments on Pritchard et al., Psychophysiology, 33, 362–368, 1996

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2002

LAURENT PEZARD
Affiliation:
Unité de Neurosciences Cognitives & Imagerie Cérébrale, LENA - CNRS UPR 640, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France Laboratoire de Neurosciences Comportementales, Université Paris 5, Paris, France
JEAN-PHILIPPE LACHAUX
Affiliation:
Unité de Neurosciences Cognitives & Imagerie Cérébrale, LENA - CNRS UPR 640, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France
NITZA THOMASSON
Affiliation:
Unité de Neurosciences Cognitives & Imagerie Cérébrale, LENA - CNRS UPR 640, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France
JACQUES MARTINERIE
Affiliation:
Unité de Neurosciences Cognitives & Imagerie Cérébrale, LENA - CNRS UPR 640, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France
Get access

Abstract

In a recent paper, Pritchard, Krieble, and Duke (Psychophysiology, 33, 362–368, 1996) studied the validity of spatial embedding of electroencephalographic (EEG) data and rejected this method in favor of time-delay embedding. The present paper describes the nonlinear characterization of brain dynamics using either spatial or time-delay embedding. We discuss the arguments published in Pritchard et al. (1996) and demonstrate that the spatial embedding cannot be rejected on this basis. We also point out the limitations of both spatial and time-delay embeddings related to the spatial extension and the high-dimensional dynamics of brain activity.

Type
COMMENTARY
Copyright
© 1999 Society for Psychophysiological Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)